My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00101
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00101
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2010 3:55:22 PM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:17:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1994
Title
Fort Lyon Canal Company Water Transfer Alternatives Study - Final Report
CWCB Section
Finance
Author
Gronning Engineering
Description
Analysis of the alternative approaches to, and the results of the transfer of agricultural water supplies from the Ft. Lyon Canal Company to alternative uses
Publications - Doc Type
Brochure
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
204
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />related to water quantity or quality has not been tested. Typically objectors complain that some <br />aspect of the application will adversely change the quantity of water received, especially as a result <br />of changed return flows from historically irrigated lands, the timing of water received, or its quality. <br />Minority shareholders on the same ditch often also desire protection from increased operating costs, <br />or weed infestations on nearby dried up lands. <br /> <br />The application proceeds as normal civil litigation, with significant attention to experts' opinions as <br />to historic use of the rights and future injury to objectors. The case is tried before a water court <br />judge, with possible appeals directly to the Colorado Supreme Court by any of the parties. The case <br />may be settled by a stipulated judgement at any time. The water court must grant the application if <br />appropriate terms and conditions can be imposed to prevent injurious effect on the owner of or <br />persons entitled to use water under a water right (C.R.S. 37-92-305). <br /> <br />The water court to the extent possible, also will consider pertinent interstate water compact <br />provisions. For example, 'This compact is not intended to impede or prevent future beneficial <br />development of the Arkansas river basin in Colorado and Kansas by federal or state agencies, by <br />private enterprise, or by combination thereof, which may involve construction of dams, reservoirs, <br />and other works for the purposes, of water utilization and control, as well as the improved or <br />prolonged functioning of existing works: Provided, that the waters of the Arkansas river, as defined <br />in article III, shall not be materially depleted in usable quantity or availability for use to the water <br />users in Colorado and Kansas under this compact by such future development or construction." <br />(Arkansas River Compact, C.R.S. 37-69-101, Art. IV, D) <br /> <br /> <br />Major transfers may have twenty or more opposing parties. The experts typically employed by the <br />parties include water rights hydrologists supplemented with groundwater geologists, surface or <br />groundwater modelers, and water quality analysts. Experts generally, but not always, prepare written <br />reports describing the details of the proposed transfers. Generally, conditions to prevent injury are <br />a part of the experts' opinions and become a part of the transfer decree (Pratt 1984). <br /> <br />While the water court process has been criticized as costly and time consuming, thorough <br />preparation, active case management, and aggressive setting of deadlines can result in timely <br />decisions in water court,' <br /> <br />2.3 Prior Transfer Interest in Ft. Lvon Canal Comoanv Water <br /> <br />In 1987 a group of 65 percent of the Ft. Lyon shareholders organized FORT-CO and joined together <br />in an effort to sell FI. Lyon water to municipal interests. The asking price was $2,500 per acre foot <br />or $4,210 per share based on their analysis. The offer to sell was not accepted by any municipal <br /> <br />, The water transfer process in Colorado is described by several authors. Refer to Browning (1992) and Vranesh <br />(1987). For Colorado water transfer data, refer 10 MacDonnell and Robinson (1990). For an explanation of policy <br />and procednres in the western slales, refer 10 Colby, el a!. (1989). Sludies of policy-induced Iransaction costs of water <br />\ransfe", are presented by Howe, Boggs and Butler (1990) and Colby (1990). <br /> <br />2-3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.